City of Miami v. State
Decision Date | 28 July 1939 |
Citation | 139 Fla. 598,190 So. 774 |
Parties | CITY OF MIAMI et al. v. STATE et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Petition by the City of Miami, a municipality in the County of Dade State of Florida, against the State of Florida to have validated proposed issues of municipal refunding bonds wherein five taxpayers intervened and filed answer, and wherein the refunding syndicate members also intervened. From an adverse decree, the plaintiff and the intervening refunding syndicate members appeal, and the intervening taxpayers cross-assign error.
Decree affirmed.
BUFORD J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.
Lewis Twyman and J. W. Watson, Jr., both of Miami for appellant City of Miami.
Casey, Walton & Spain, of Miami, for appellants Hornblower & Weeks et al.
Mitchell D. Price, Charles W. Zaring, and Jack R. Kirchik, all of Miami, for appellees.
The appeal herein is from an order of the Circuit Court denying and dismissing a petition by the City of Miami, Florida, to have validated by the Court proposed issues aggregating $28,808,000 of municipal refunding bonds, under Chapter 15772, a general Act of 1931, Ex.Sess. The validation proceedings were brought under Chapter 12003, Acts of 1927, as amended by Chapter 14504, Acts of 1929 Ex.Sess.; Sections 5106 (3296) et seq., C.G.L. The refunding bonds are designed to be issued under the last portion of Section 6, Article IX of the Florida Constitution, as amended in 1930.
The petition filed by the City under the statute alleged the adoption of, and exhibited copies of, four resolutions of the City Commission to authorize, under Chapter 15772, General Laws of 1931, Ex.Sess., the issuance of the proposed refunding bonds sought to be judicially validated. Notice by order was served on the State Attorney and notice to the taxpayers and citizens of the city was published under the statute. Five taxpayers intervened and filed an answer, and incorporated therein a motion to dismiss the petition, which motion was denied. The State Attorney filed an answer and adopted that of the intervenor taxpayers. Motions by the City to strike portions of the answer of the State Attorneys were denied; and motions to strike portions of the answer of the taxpayers were granted in part. Other parties referred to as Refunding Syndicate Members, alleged to be employed by the City in the refunding operations, were allowed to intervene.
Testimony was taken and the order made by the court is as follows:
'The refunding matter now before the Court on behalf of the City of Miami represents an original indebtedness originally incurred as follows;
Original City of Miami....
$ 8,603,000
Coconut Grove area........
309,000
Buena Vista area..........
100,000
Silver Bluff area.........
200,000
Greater Miami.............
19,596,000
-----------
'The resolution for refunding hereby sought to be validated specifies that same shall be pursuant to Chapter 15772, Laws of Florida of 1931, Ex.Sess. Section 8 of which reads as follows:
The City and the intervenors, not including the taxpaying intervenors, appealed, making the State and the taxpaying intervenors appellees, and assigned as errors.
'1. * * * in rendering and entering the said Order.
'2. * * * in denying the petition filed herein by the said City, October 3, 1938.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Federation of Labor v. Watson
...So. 838; State v. Emerson, 126 Fla. 576, 171 So. 663; American Bakeries Co. v. Haines City, 131 Fla. 790, 180 So. 524; City of Miami v. State, 139 Fla. 598, 190 So. 774; Bryan v. City of Miami, 139 Fla. 650, 190 So. 772. 13 Here, too, there is doubt whether the constitutional provision is s......
-
State ex rel. St. Charles County v. Smith
...Doon Township v. Cummins, 142 U.S. 366, 34 L.Ed. 1044; Commissioners of Sinking Fund of Louisville v. Zimmerman, 41 S.W. 428; City of Miami v. Florida, 190 So. 774. (4) issuance of the refunding bonds will violate a covenant in the original order prohibiting the issuance of additional bonds......
-
State v. City of Fort Myers
...to assist them in accomplishing the desired result has been upheld by us in Pierce v. Isaac, 134 Fla. 666, 184 So. 509; City of Miami v. State, 139 Fla. 598, 190 So. 774. See, also, City of Fernandina v. Fal., 197 So. 454. In that case there was involved the legality of the payment of fees ......
-
State ex rel. St. Charles County v. Smith, 37587.
...v. Cummins, 142 U.S. 366, 34 L. Ed. 1044; Commissioners of Sinking Fund of Louisville v. Zimmerman, 41 S.W. 428; City of Miami v. Florida, 190 So. 774. (4) The issuance of the refunding bonds will violate a covenant in the original order prohibiting the issuance of additional bonds unless t......